Recent developments in climate science have shown that some natural disasters could not have occurred without global climate change. Photo: Shutterstock

For many years, climate scientists were unable to make an exact connection between global climate change and local weather. After all, there are many factors that influence the weather, including natural climate variations. The most they could say was that climate change creates conditions that raise the probability of extreme weather events. A warmer climate holds more moisture, which can lead to more torrential downpours and the resultant flooding or mudslides, for example.

But now, climate science has advanced to the point where extreme events can be attributed to global climate change.

“This relatively new area of science—known as event attribution—is rapidly advancing,” writes the Committee on Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change Attribution at the National Academy of Science. “The advances have come about for two main reasons: one, the understanding of climate and weather mechanisms that produce extreme events is improving, and two, rapid progress is being made in the methods that are used for event attribution.”

However, what event attribution does allow scientists to do is to investigate and determine the extent to which global climate change has influenced a natural disaster. This is done with the help of climate models—computerized simulations that compare events with and without the assumption of climate change. Researchers then compare the outcomes and can study the connection between global climate change and individual natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and wildfires.

It’s only in the last couple of years that researchers have begun saying that some extreme weather events like the Russian heat wave of 2010 (which contributed to the deaths of more than 50,000 people), record-breaking temperatures in 2016, and the California drought could not have occurred without climate change.

“Every time we have a high-impact, catastrophic, perhaps extreme event happening, people are invariably asking the question, ‘Is this climate change?’” Nikos Christidis of the UK Met (meteorological) Office told Scientific American. “The whole science of event attribution developed so that we can provide scientifically robust answers to these questions.”

So, can we blame individual natural disasters on global climate change? We can say with a high degree of confidence that climate change influences the severity and duration of extreme weather events, and that some events couldn’t have happened without it. However, even events that wouldn’t be possible without warming are still influenced by the earth’s natural climate and weather systems.

That said, what the new research does reveal is that the planet has reached a point where climate change is not just a factor in extreme weather events, but an essential component for some.

]]>Is Big Government Bad Government?https://www.civicsnation.org/2018/02/20/is-big-government-bad/
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:39:41 +0000https://www.civicsnation.org/?p=2062As of late, “big government” has become a dirty word. For lots of people it brings to mind concepts like totalitarianism, loss of freedom, and the moral corruption of society. But the fear regarding big government stems from myths and unfounded conspiracy theories. In this article, I address these fears head-on so that we can […]

As of late, “big government” has become a dirty word. For lots of people it brings to mind concepts like totalitarianism, loss of freedom, and the moral corruption of society. But the fear regarding big government stems from myths and unfounded conspiracy theories. In this article, I address these fears head-on so that we can stop the spread of misinformation. But first thing’s first: a little history on the subject matter.

The question of whether big government is bad dates back to the Civil War, when the Confederacy argued that the federal government was trampling on states’ rights by trying to abolish slavery. Assuming that we can all agree that forced, unpaid labor is wrong, outlawing the practice of slavery across state lines is a scenario in which the federal government made the right call. In this instance, big government granted people freedom and helped propel America towards a more just and equitable society.

Speaking of poverty, big government also provides subsidy programs for low-income Americans. Commonly known as welfare, these programs provide temporary financial relief to families in need. Key word: temporary.

And yet, many Americans are against welfare programs despite how effective they’ve been proven to be.

Part of the reason is due to prevailing myths regarding how much welfare costs. A 2011 CNN poll revealed that most Americans believe welfare comprises a huge portion of the U.S. budget. Those surveyed estimated that we spend an average of four times more than the actual cost, when the truth is welfare actually makes up less than 15 percent of discretionary spending.

While there are always improvements and efficiencies that can make programs more effective, data shows that the U.S.’s welfare programs are making a big difference. Data from this CBPP report showed that between 2009-2012, the government tax and benefit system reduced poverty by more than 50 percent in 41 states. Further research by CBPP also found that poverty rates were cut in half by safety net programs in 2013, with a total of 39 million Americans (including 8 million children) lifted out of poverty.

America will always be the land of opportunity, and often programs like these are what make it possible for the underdog to succeed in a capitalist economy. It’s called the American Dream for a reason—anyone should be able to achieve it. While our government is far-reaching, that is not necessarily a bad thing; after all, its purpose is to protect and promote the common welfare of its people. Should we remain skeptics and keep it from becoming excessive? Absolutely. But let’s not equate excessive government with a government that provides social programs that actually do help millions of Americans every single year.

“True security is based on people’s welfare – on a thriving economy, on strong public health and education programmes, and on fundamental respect for our common humanity. Development, peace, disarmament, reconciliation, and justice are not separate from security; they help to underpin it.” ~ Ban Ki-moon

]]>Where to Draw the Line on Gun Controlhttps://www.civicsnation.org/2018/02/19/draw-line-gun-control/
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:30:55 +0000https://www.civicsnation.org/?p=2052October 1, 2017 was a tragic day for Americans. It was the day that 64-year-old Stephen Paddock opened fire on a crowd of Las Vegas concertgoers—killing 58 people and wounding nearly 500 others. It set a record for deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Predictably, it reignited a longstanding debate about gun control. It […]

Gun control is a fraught subject, particularly in light of recent mass shootings. Photo: Shutterstock

October 1, 2017 was a tragic day for Americans. It was the day that 64-year-old Stephen Paddock opened fire on a crowd of Las Vegas concertgoers—killing 58 people and wounding nearly 500 others. It set a record for deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Predictably, it reignited a longstanding debate about gun control. It seemed that everyone, both Democrats and Republicans alike, wanted to know: How do we prevent this from happening again?

The answer isn’t as clear-cut as it appears. While some argue that the solution is to ban guns altogether, the fact is that the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms. It’s a right the Supreme Court affirmed in 2008 in the District of Columbia v. Heller case when it overturned a handgun ban in the city, justice Antonin Scalia explicitly affirming an individual’s right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense.

But even by this definition, the Second Amendment doesn’t necessarily grant the right to bear military-style assault weapons. The Bill of Rights was first adopted in 1791, long before the first military-grade assault rifle was invented (the StG 44 is considered the first mass-produced assault rifle; the German army adopted it in 1944).

When we think about the Constitution in this context, we can then safely assume that the Founding Fathers didn’t have assault weapons in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment—because they simply didn’t exist. The world we are living in today is different than the world in which the Constitution was written, and that means it is now up to us as modern-day citizens to interpret whether or not semi-automatic weapons fall under this purview.

After the Civil War, militias were abolished in former Confederate states and the 1866 Civil Rights Act was passed to protect freed slaves’ right to bear arms. It wasn’t until a hundred years later, when the Black Panthers began conducting armed patrols in Oakland neighborhoods, that the issue of gun control became a public issue for Republican and Democrats alike.

Under then-Governor Reagan, the Mulford Act was signed into law in 1967. The law—supported by the NRA—banned the public carry of loaded guns in cities. By the time the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was signed into law in 1994, the NRA had shifted to its more extreme hardline Second Amendment rights defense position.

So where does that leave us with assault weapons? Ownership of fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 is already restricted; any fully automatic machine guns that were made pre-1986 must be registered with the ATF and require citizens to undergo extensive background checks before they may legally own them. The National Firearms Act, or NFA, federally regulates all fully automatic weapons, suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices like grenades and bombs. Under the NFA, fully automatic weapons may only be purchased by qualified state and federal agencies—without exception.

What about machine guns made before 1986? Those can be obtained by private citizens, but there are an extensive list of hoops to jump through, a high price tag, and the process takes about a year. If an individual passes the background checks, they must register the gun federally with their information and a unique serial number for the weapon. Additionally, any time the individual moves or plans to travel outside of their state of residence, they are required to notify the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Long story short? Any reporting that posits the ownership of machine guns as “perfectly legal” is highly misleading. Is it possible? Yes, but the image of any Joe Schmoe just sauntering into a gun shop and walking out that same day with a slew of machine guns is inaccurate to say the least.

But… those laws didn’t stop Las Vegas massacre gunman Stephen Paddock from exploiting a loophole in the system. So, what happened, and what can we do about it? While fully automatic weapons are highly regulated and difficult to obtain, semi-automatic weapons are much easier to acquire. According to The Washington Post, Paddock owned several semi-automatic weapons that he then legally modified to fire at a speed similar to a fully automatic machine gun, using an alteration known as a bump stock.

Bump stocks are not banned under federal law, as they do not technically convert a rifle into a fully automatic firearm. In the Las Vegas shooting, this alteration allowed about 90 shots to go off in 10 seconds (compared to about 98 shots in 7 seconds for a fully automatic weapon).

The problem here is that if Paddock can do it, so can others. And so now we must charge the government with closing this loophole so that massacres like this don’t happen again.

According to the Constitution’s preamble, the government serves six main purposes:

To form a more perfect union

To establish justice

To insure domestic tranquility

To provide for the common defense

To promote the general welfare

To secure the blessings of liberty

That third point is particularly relevant to this discussion, as it clearly outlines the government’s role in insuring domestic tranquility. As it is now, semi-automatic weapons, specifically those altered with bump stocks, pose a huge threat to domestic security.

But the government is also responsible for securing the blessings of liberty. We must find a happy medium that protects citizens’ Second Amendment rights while at the same time ensuring the safety of our citizens.

This is horrifying proof that this a dire problem in need of a complex solution. The issue of gun control is not something that can be solved with emotional arguments, personal insults, and polarization—we must talk about this rationally, factually, and find a middle-ground solution. Our kids’, neighbors’, friends’, and family’s lives may very well depend on it.

What do you think the ideal amount of gun control to accomplish both of these goals is? What are some common sense regulations that could offer a viable compromise?

]]>Union of Concerned Scientists Sues the EPAhttps://www.civicsnation.org/2018/02/16/union-of-concerned-scientists-sues-epa-climate-change/
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:21:19 +0000https://www.civicsnation.org/?p=2036The fight is on. Last month, on January 23, the Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit against the EPA for limiting the involvement of certain scientists from serving on its advisory committees, specifically scientists from academia and nonpartisan non-profit organizations. The move came after President Trump’s EPA director Scott Pruitt called for an “open, […]

The Union of Concerned Scientist has filed a lawsuit against the EPA. Photo by Kristi Blokhin / Shutterstock.com

The fight is on. Last month, on January 23, the Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit against the EPA for limiting the involvement of certain scientists from serving on its advisory committees, specifically scientists from academia and nonpartisan non-profit organizations.

The move came after President Trump’s EPA director Scott Pruitt called for an “open, honest” talk about climate change. For the scientific community, the EPA’s effort to limit scientist involvement represents anything but “open” and “honest.” They are suing largely because they see the EPA’s actions as a thinly veiled effort to give corporations unfair influence over policy.

The Union of Concerned Scientists called it “an attack on science itself.” Pruitt’s approach seems to be tame, conversational, and disarming—which is dangerous if your perspective is that climate change is a pressing problem.

He recently commented that he thought global warming might not “necessarily” be “a bad thing.” This represents a shift from his earlier stance questioning whether global warming was occurring at all. Essentially, the head of the EPA pivoted from denying the scientific community’s consensus, to arguing that they might be correct, but it’s not important.

Climate change and global warming clearly represent one of the great challenges of our time. Pruitt’s approach might seem reasonable on its surface – he speaks in measured tones and likes to pose questions – but we shouldn’t assume that this isn’t a tactic.

All Pruitt has to do is stall. If climate change is the problem scientists say it is, urgent action is needed. If Pruitt meets this urgency with a “wait and see” approach, he directly ignores the scientific consensus, leaving the door open to special interests for as long as the debate is dubbed unresolved.

If we understand it this way, we see that Pruitt doesn’t really have to prove anything. If he is in fact attempting to subvert the scientific community in favor of big business, he doesn’t need to prove climate scientists wrong, all he has to do is perpetuate a story that there’s more debate to be had.

In this context the lawsuit makes a lot of sense, even if the head of the EPA is calling for “open, honest” discussion. At this point, the discussion he hopes for may not actually be intended to reach a solution, but instead as a stalling tactic meant to undermine trust in the scientific community.

]]>Should the U.S. Continue Sending Foreign Aid to Pakistan?https://www.civicsnation.org/2018/02/14/pakistan-foreign-aid/
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 00:42:20 +0000https://www.civicsnation.org/?p=2032Republicans in Congress are pushing to end US foreign aid to Pakistan, a move that could create international instability and weaken the U.S.’s bargaining power. On Tuesday Congressmen Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced the legislation in the House, joining Rand Paul’s efforts in the Senate to fund infrastructure projects […]

Republicans in Congress are pushing to end US foreign aid to Pakistan, a move that could create international instability and weaken the U.S.’s bargaining power.

On Tuesday Congressmen Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced the legislation in the House, joining Rand Paul’s efforts in the Senate to fund infrastructure projects by ending foreign aid to Pakistan. The trend started after President Trump froze aid to Pakistan in early January, describing the country as a safe haven for terrorists.

There are a couple questions we should be asking as our government explores its options. First, is this a shift toward isolationism in the Republican Party, and if so what will this trend look like moving forward? Secondly, should we end funding to Pakistan?

Republicans of the past were by no means isolationist. Reagan promoted free trade with Latin America, and President Nixon is famous for blindsiding the world with his trip to China. The isolationist streak within the Republican Party may have always existed, but until recently, it hasn’t been one of its defining attributes.

The 2016 presidential election revealed a renewed focus on domestic politics and the working class. On the left, it explains the rise of Bernie Sanders, who advocated for increased spending for healthcare and free college tuition programs. On the right, Donald Trump spoke to working-class Americans who felt they had long been ignored, by promising to put them first.

While the left wants to tax the rich to pay for programs, the right’s focus is on cutting social programs and international aid. Hostility toward Pakistan follows President Trump’s past patterns of isolating the U.S. from Islamic countries. If we think about things in this context, then cutting ties with countries like Pakistan serves to both bring money back into the U.S. and appease the anti-Muslim element of the Republican base.

From a purely political standpoint, this is a strategic move that makes sense for the right.

But, this leads us to our second question: Should we cut funding to Pakistan? That question is much more complex. While Republicans (and not a few Democrats) may want to play a black and white “you’re with us or you’re against us” game, this limited view ignores realities that could have a huge impact.

For example, India and Pakistan are historically a political powder-keg that fall along old Cold War dividing lines. In fact, Nixon opened the door to China with communication through Pakistan. Pulling support for Pakistan could lead to international instability, creating more conflict abroad, not less. It could also quash an important foothold the US enjoys in the region. Disengaging from the country will likely weaken the US’s bargaining power, and promote more instability, not less.

]]>Is The U.S. a Democracy or a Republic?https://www.civicsnation.org/2018/02/13/is-the-u-s-a-democracy-or-a-republic/
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:08:33 +0000https://www.civicsnation.org/?p=2027The United States is a democracy, right? Yes. Absolutely. But if that’s the case, why are we seeing arguments to the contrary? It’s not in headlines, but below the surface within right-leaning online political publications—the kinds of places some might go to find alternatives to what’s being dubbed “fake news” by our president—people are trying […]

Is the U.S. a democracy or a republic? Why is that even a question? Photo: Shutterstock

The United States is a democracy, right? Yes. Absolutely. But if that’s the case, why are we seeing arguments to the contrary?

It’s not in headlines, but below the surface within right-leaning online political publications—the kinds of places some might go to find alternatives to what’s being dubbed “fake news” by our president—people are trying to argue that the U.S. is a constitutional republic, and not a democracy at all. But of course the U.S. is a democracy! Why would anyone want to confuse the issue?

Before we try to answer that question, let’s talk about how the American democratic system actually works. The folks perpetuating these stories say that republics and democracies are incompatible things, and that the U.S. is a republic. Any civics expert will tell you that these two systems are not mutually exclusive.

The United States is a democratic republic—both a democracy and a republic. Case closed. The conversation should end there, right? Wrong. Proponents of the idea that the U.S. is not meant to be democratic like to talk a lot about the founders, so let’s talk a bit about the founders.

It’s true that the founding fathers didn’t support a pure, direct, Rousseauian-style democracy, but they clearly did believe in a democratically elected government. To reconcile two ideas, they devised a system where representatives are democratically elected by the populace to serve at the pleasure of the citizenry.

Where you have voting representatives, you have a republic. The Senate was created to balance power between more and less powerful states based on region, and the House of Representatives served to represent the citizenry based on population.

The beauty of the American system can be found in its effort to combine democratic ideals with a classical republic to develop a practical democratic system. In fact, it’s this republicanism that makes democracy work in America.

Now that we’ve tackled this issue, let’s get back to the question at hand: is the U.S. a democracy or a republic? Why would any interest group seek to perpetuate a story that says the American system is a Constitutional republic and not a democracy? The answer is all about messaging.

On its most basic level, this kind of argument gives ammo to folks who want to engage in debate surrounding political structures. It may make someone feel as if they know something others don’t, or that they can redirect a conversation toward a topic they feel informed about. It’s empowering, and that’s how the narrative spreads.

This doesn’t seem so bad on the surface, but it’s the implied arguments that are frightening. For instance, it suggests that democracy itself is bad, that it represents big government, and so it should be squashed in favor of republicanism. Democracy, then, is seen as invalid and associated with Democrats, and republics are seen as constitutional and associated with Republicans.

If this seems like too big of a logical jump for you, keep in mind that these kinds of arguments do in fact exist, and often follow reductive and incomplete reasoning. One popular YouTube video paints the “left vs. right” divide as a spectrum with big government on one end, anarchy on the other, and republicanism sitting safely to the right of direct democracy. It’s really a perversion of the political compass, a common tool for understanding political ideologies.

The most frightening element of the argument, though, is that people who subscribe to the idea that democracy is bad can use the idea to justify horrible abuses. For instance, if democracy is associated with mob rule or is seen as somehow unconstitutional, then arguments against it could potentially be used to justify voter suppression efforts in the name of constitutionality, or worse.

The GOP is shrinking and becoming an increasingly white party with all demographic trends working against it. Whites will be less than 50 percent of the U.S. population by 2050. So, this push to crush out the term “democracy” as an enemy of the Constitution probably has to do with asserting the right of the minority to rule over the majority. It is a dangerous mindset that ignores the notions of self-governance and self-rule that are core concepts being expressed whenever someone says, “the U.S. is a democracy.”

]]>What Does a Welfare Queen Really Look Like?https://www.civicsnation.org/2018/02/08/welfare-queen-really-look-like/
Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:24:45 +0000https://www.civicsnation.org/?p=1934We’ve all heard it before: someone told a friend of a friend that they saw a designer jewelry-clad woman carrying a brand-new iPhone, who then whipped out her food stamp card to pay for her groceries. But this so-called welfare queen, who is allegedly living high on the hog with her welfare benefits, is a […]

Government assistance helps people of all races to escape poverty. Photo: Shutterstock

We’ve all heard it before: someone told a friend of a friend that they saw a designer jewelry-clad woman carrying a brand-new iPhone, who then whipped out her food stamp card to pay for her groceries. But this so-called welfare queen, who is allegedly living high on the hog with her welfare benefits, is a long-standing myth.

The modern incarnation of the myth came when Ronald Reagan, during his 1976 presidential campaign, mentioned Linda Taylor, a “welfare queen” who had defrauded the government to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits.

While Taylor did defraud the government, she did not do so as a simple public aid recipient—she stole her money from a variety of government services and defrauded private individuals as well.

Unfortunately, Reagan’s use of her story and dubbing her a welfare queen created a wildly inaccurate public perception of public aid recipients. They are not, in fact, “fur-laden thieves bleeding the American economy dry.”

Another issue that emerges from this terminology is its racist connotation. Even among people who don’t see themselves as racist, the pervasive stereotype of a welfare queen is an image of a lazy, single black mother living large off of the bounty of the honest taxpayer.

Why? The image of poverty and welfare being associated with people of color has a lot to do with the media’s portrayal of poverty and its relationship to race. In 1964, 27 percent of the photos accompanying stories about poverty in three of the U.S.’s top weekly news magazines featured black subjects. The following year, it was 49 percent, and by 1967, a whopping 72 percent of photos accompanying stories about poverty featured black Americans.

So, who really does get the majority of government assistance? Let’s take a look at the statistics.

The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analyzed Census Bureau data to measure poverty and the government’s role in lowering poverty rates.

How do you measure poverty? The measurement used by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which includes both cash and “near-cash” benefit programs and refundable tax credits, but not health insurance programs. The CBPP also said that the SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) program is so important that analysts across the ideological spectrum agree with the inclusion of SNAP in poverty estimates.

The researchers found that the poverty rate before government assistance is highly correlated with education level. Working-age adults of any race without a college degree are more than three times more likely to live in poverty. More than 80 percent of adults who are poor before government assistance live in families where no one has a college degree.

Government assistance—including food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies, home energy assistance, school lunch programs, Social Security, and tax credits like the Earned Income Credit—are powerful tools to help lift working-class adults out of poverty. Of those without college degrees receiving government assistance in 2014, 44 percent of whites (6.2 million), 43 percent of blacks (2.8 million) and 28 percent of Hispanics (2.4 million) were lifted above the poverty line.

While working-class adults who are minorities are statistically more likely to live in poverty than whites, the reality is that government aid assists individuals across all races. Instead of promulgating racist myths to justify cutting away at the social safety net, we would be much better served by continuing to fund these programs—while at the same time finding efficiencies that would allow more resources to be directed at helping needy people of all races find a way out of poverty.

]]>Automation, Not Immigration, Is Causing American Job Losseshttps://www.civicsnation.org/2018/02/07/automation-not-immigration-cause-american-job-losses/
Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:04:26 +0000https://www.civicsnation.org/?p=1926There’s no doubt that the economy played a huge role in the 2016 election. According to CNN, the U.S. has lost five million manufacturing jobs since 2000. During the campaign season, Donald Trump promised to bring those jobs back. When it came time for the election, Americans chose the candidate who they believed would put […]

American workers are losing their jobs to robots, not immigrants. Photo: Shutterstock

There’s no doubt that the economy played a huge role in the 2016 election.

According to CNN, the U.S. has lost five million manufacturing jobs since 2000. During the campaign season, Donald Trump promised to bring those jobs back. When it came time for the election, Americans chose the candidate who they believed would put food on their table.

Indeed, the net number of jobs added/lost under Trump since February 2017 is 1.84 million. The median jobs growth of 208,000 per month is the highest since Bill Clinton, with many of the new jobs in manufacturing.

However, there are some lingering doubts about the long-term success of President Trump’s plan to bring more prosperity to the average American.

During the campaign season, Trump said that he would save jobs at Carrier, an Indiana-based heating and air conditioning company that threatened to move its plant to Mexico. Trump did manage to prevent Carrier from moving, but the company still laid off hundreds of employees.

“I don’t think he’s really going to come through, even though I hoped he would,” one laid-off worker said.

“He pulled a bait-and-switch on us,” another chimed in.

So why wasn’t Trump able to prevent these layoffs, even after the company kept its plant in the U.S.?

Throughout his campaign and presidency, Trump has pointed the finger at foreign workers and immigrants, particularly those from China and Mexico. But while outsourcing is an issue, it isn’t the entire problem—not even close.

There’s a big issue that isn’t being talked about as much in politics: increasing automation in the manufacturing industry. Americans aren’t losing their jobs to foreigners—they’re losing them to robots. And that’s not exactly a problem that has a quick fix.

Tech industry leaders have been talking about this issue for years. Elon Musk, co-founder and CEO of Tesla, says that technology is advancing to the point where robots are becoming more efficient than humans. And when that’s the case, many companies will choose automation—the more profitable option.

“There certainly will be job disruption. Because what’s going to happen is robots will be able to do everything better than us. … I mean all of us,” Musk said at the National Governors Association 2017 Summer Meeting.

“Our generation will have to deal with tens of millions of jobs replaced by automation like self-driving cars and trucks,” he said, further explaining, “When our parents graduated, purpose reliably came from your job, your church, your community. But today, technology and automation are eliminating many jobs. Membership in communities is declining. Many people feel disconnected and depressed, and are trying to fill a void.”

This type of cultural shift understandably makes people fearful about the future. That fear often translates to anger, as people seek someone or something to blame for their woes. As psychology professor Susan Krauss Whitbourne points out, “Blame is a tool we use when we’re in attack mode.”

And attack mode it has been, as Americans continue to use immigrants and foreign workers as scapegoats for the loss of domestic jobs. Unfortunately, much of that anger has been misdirected. Bringing jobs back to the U.S. isn’t as simple as keeping the factories here; more and more, it’s about figuring out how to deal with the disruption that automation brings to the job market.

]]>Does the News Media Really Have a Liberal Bias?https://www.civicsnation.org/2018/02/06/news-media-bias-liberal-media/
Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:44:48 +0000https://www.civicsnation.org/?p=1921A long-time rallying cry on the right has been that the news media has a liberal bias. This allows them to discredit any facts reported by the mainstream media by saying it’s propaganda promulgated by the “liberal media.” In fact, according to a 2017 Gallup poll, 62 percent of Americans believe the news media favors […]

Although some believe in news media bias, it’s people’s perceptions that are biased. Photo by Nicole S Glass / Shutterstock.com

A long-time rallying cry on the right has been that the news media has a liberal bias. This allows them to discredit any facts reported by the mainstream media by saying it’s propaganda promulgated by the “liberal media.” In fact, according to a 2017 Gallup poll, 62 percent of Americans believe the news media favors one party over the other, and 88 percent of American Republicans believe that the news media has a liberal bias.

But is the reporting done by mainstream news media really tilted leftward? The answer may surprise you.

It’s true that many Hollywood stars tend to be liberal; for example, Oprah Winfrey very publicly supported Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. It’s true that commentators such as Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, and Glenn Beck have clear and strong biases—and large followings as well.

It’s true that the papers and networks of record are based in places like New York; Washington, D.C.; and the West Coast, areas that trend liberal in social and economic issues. It’s also true that the opinion columns in the United States’ traditional and digital media lean left—and sometimes strongly so.

However, journalists are trained to report in an objective way, no matter their personal opinions. And the economics of journalism incentivize reporters and their editors to report accurate news that is supported by credible sources. For example, after it was learned that Judith Miller at The New York Times falsified many of her reports about the evidence for invading Iraq, she was fired and her career in journalism mostly ended.

While the news media itself may not be biased, public perception of news media bias is very clear.

According to the Pew Research Center, public perception of the media’s role as well as its bias has shifted dramatically over the past year. For example, in 2016, more than seven in 10 Americans—both Democrats and Republicans—felt that the media played a crucial role in keeping politicians from doing things they shouldn’t. However, in 2017, 89 percent of Democrats and only 42 percent of Republicans believed the media played a watchdog role. This is the widest gap measured since Pew started monitoring this metric in 1985.

The University of Michigan Library published a research guide for students on how to sort fact from fiction, and how to discern news media bias. In it, they recommend that students refer to a website called AllSides, which uses a patented system of discerning the bias ratings of various news sources and allows people to submit their own ratings. According to AllSides, there are actually more outlets that are centrist or have a conservative bias than there are sources that have a liberal bias. The site has rated 137 news sources as either “roughly center” or “right leaning” and 103 as “left” or “left leaning.”*

If you truly want to avoid biased media, it’s crucial to read stories from sources with which you disagree as well as those that match your political views. In an age of increasing social media use and an increase in the number of online outlets whose authors may not abide by trained reporters’ guidelines about maintaining objectivity, it’s more important than ever to check your facts and read stories from diverse sources.

]]>What Is An Honest Climate Change Debate?https://www.civicsnation.org/2018/02/05/honest-climate-change-debate/
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 17:49:35 +0000https://www.civicsnation.org/?p=1915Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA appointed by Donald Trump, is calling for an “open, honest talk” about climate change, a topic that has traditionally divided Democrats and Republicans. In the current polarized political landscape, it’s worth asking what exactly Mr. Pruitt means when he says “open” and “honest.” In his remarks, he suggested that […]

Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA appointed by Donald Trump, is calling for an “open, honest talk” about climate change, a topic that has traditionally divided Democrats and Republicans.

In the current polarized political landscape, it’s worth asking what exactly Mr. Pruitt means when he says “open” and “honest.” In his remarks, he suggested that the climate change debate should not be about whether the climate is actually changing, but how that change can realistically predict for the future and whether the prevailing scientific methods for climate measurement should be trusted.

Pruitt admits that the earth is in fact heating, but attempts to shift the discussion away from the impending danger such changes may present, instead suggesting that there may be no way to know for certain whether the global temperature will continue to rise to projected levels.

This is technically true—all scientific projections carry a measure of doubt—but exaggerating that doubt is a common tactic used by science deniers to sow skepticism among the populace. A small amount of uncertainty should not discredit the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The prevailing belief within the scientific community is that the earth is heating at a dangerous rate, largely due to human activity. Though Mr. Pruitt is questioning measurement methods for predicting climate change, we’re already finding that climate models have been accurately predicting the rate of ocean heat accumulation. Though we can never be completely certain what the future looks like, it would be unwise to ignore the data available to us.

Refusing to recognize climate change as an imminent threat because experts only have a “high level of certainty” instead of “absolute certainty” of its lasting impact is like refusing a completely safe, life-saving surgery because you’re pretty sure if you just pretend you’re not sick, you’ll get better.

How does Mr. Pruitt expect to have an open climate change debate when the scientific research is so heavily lopsided? There isn’t a significant debate within the scientific community, which suggests that Pruitt’s imagining of a broader debate would boil down to trying to discredit the experts who study the very topic, not asking objective questions and paying heed to the weight of these scientists’ experience and expertise.

In other words, if we are to have an informed public climate change debate, it would have to be based on objective evidence and be a conversation between experts. But it’s that very evidence that Pruitt is calling into question.

It’s a catch-22, and we as citizens would be remiss if we didn’t recognize the political convenience of the EPA Administrator’s approach. The stance serves to discredit climate change studies without having to directly confront the scientific evidence on the topic. By arguing for a “fair, open debate,” Pruitt is seeking to promote an ideology that distrusts science itself rather than one that objectively confronts real and pressing issues.